2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-29-2009 

# B rown v . W i lli amson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3703

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B r own v . W i ll i am s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1975. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1975T he H onor abl e M arvi n J . G arbi s , D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof M ary l and, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 06- 3703

____________ RO GE R L . BR OWN, A p p e llan t, v. WARDE N T RO Y WI L L I AM S ON,

A ppel l ee.

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 00851) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary6, 2009 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S , a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a nd G A RB I S, D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: J anuary29, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . R ogerB r ow n appea l s an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof h ab ea s co rpu s. F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l vac ate the o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt a n d r e m a n d f

o rd i s c o v e r y. I. B e c a u se w e w rite e x c lu siv e lyf o r th e p a rties , w e w ill re v iew o n lyth e f a c ts es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. W hil e i n p ri son fo r burgl ary , B row n w as conv i ct ed o f kil l i ng a m an in the co urse of a pr evi ous r obberyi n t he D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a i n 1978 and w as s ent ence d i n 1980. D ur i ng hi s i ncar cer at i on, B r ow n compl et ed an appr ent i ces hi p as an el ectr i ci an and re c e iv e d v o c a tio n a l train in g in b u ild in g m a in ten a n c e a n d c o n stru c tio n , h e a tin g a n d a ir condi t i oni ng, and comput er s . H e has no di s ci pl i naryi nfr act i ons i n the pas t20 y ear s , but he had f i ve w eapons and drug vi ol at i ons betw een 1981 a nd 1988. In 2 0 0 6 , B ro w n ’s in iti a l b id f o r p a ro le w a s re

jec ted b yth e U n ited S tate s P a ro le C o m m is s io n . A t h is p a ro le h e a ri n g , B ro w n re f u s e d to a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility f o r h is c ri m e . I n deny i ng B r ow n par ol e, the C om m i s s i on appl i ed the curr entgui del i nes s etfor th i n 28 C . F. R . § 2. 80, r atherthan the gui del i nes thatw er e i n eff ectatthe t i m e of hi s offe ns e. T he g u idelines in 1 9 7 8 instructed the D istri ct of C o lum b ia B o ard o f P aro le t o co n side r: ( a) T he off

ens e, not i ng the natur e of the vi ol at i on, m i t i gat i ng oraggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s and the ac t i vi t i es and adj us t m entof the off enderfol l ow i ng arr es ti f on bond ori n the comm uni tyunderanypr es ent ence type a rra n g e m e n t.3

( b) Pr i orhi s t oryof cr i m i nal i tynot i ng the natur e and pa t t ern of anypr i or off enses as theym ayrel at e t o the curr ent ci rcum st ances. (c ) P e rso n a l an d so c ial h isto ryo f th e o f f e n d e r, in c lu d in g su c h f

a c to rs a s h is f a m i l y s i tu a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , s o c i a l i z a t i o n , m a r i t a l h i s t o ry, e m p lo ym e n t h isto ry , u se o f leis u re tim e a n d p rio r m ili tar ye x p e rie n c e , if a n y. ( d) Phy s i cal and emot i onal heal th and/ orpr obl ems w hi ch mayhave pl ay ed a r o l e i n th e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s s o c i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s , a n d e f f o r t s ma d e t o o v e r c o me anysuch p robl em s. (e ) In stitu tio n a l ex p e rie n c e , inc lu d in g in f o rm a tio n a s to th e o f

f e n d e r’s o v e ra ll g e n e ra l ad

ju stm e n t, his a b ili tyto h a n d le in terp e rso n a l re latio n sh ip s, h is b e h a v io r re sp o n se s, h is p lan n in g f o r h im se lf

, se tti n g m e a n in g f

u l g o a ls in a re a s o f a c a d e m ic s c h o o lin g , v o c a tio n a l ed u c a tio n o r tra in in g , inv o lv e m e n ts in se lf -im p ro v e m e n t ac tiv itya n d th e ra p ya n d h is u til iza tio n o f a v a ilab le re so u rc e s to o v e rc o m e re c o g n ize d p ro b lem s. A c h iev e m e n ts in acc om pl i s hi ng goal s and ef for t s putfor th i n anyi nvol vement s i n es t abl i s hed pr ogr ams t o over come pr obl ems ar e ca r eful l yeval uat ed. (f ) C o m m u n ityre so u rc e s a v a ilab le to a ss ist th e o f f e n d e r w ith re g a rd to h is needs and pr obl ems, w hi ch w i l l s uppl ementtr eatm entand tr ai ni ng p ro g ra m s b e g u n in th e in stitu tio n , an d b e a v a ilab le to a ss ist th e o f f e n d e r to f u rth e r se rv e in h is e f

f o rts to re in teg ra te h im se lf b a c k in to th e c o m m u n ity a n d w ith in h is f

a m ilyu n it as a p ro d u c tiv e u se f u l in d iv id u a l. D. C. M UN . R EGS . ti t. 9 , § 1 0 5 . 1 (19 7 2 ). In 1 9 8 7 th e B o a rd o f

P a ro le im p lem e n ted a p o in t-b a se d sc o rin g sy ste m to f o rm a lize th e m a n n e r in w h ich it ex e rc ise d its d isc re tio n . U n d e r th e 1 9 8 7 sy ste m , p o in ts w er e aw ar ded i n var i ous cat egor i es w hi ch r efl ect ed the enumer at ed fa ct or s underthe pr evi ous gui del i nes , and an i nm at e’ s t ot al s cor e det erm i ned hi s s ui t abi l i tyforpar ol e. T he B oar d r et ai ned di s cr et i on i n “unus ual ci r cumst ance s ” t o gr antpar ol e eve n w hen an4

i n ma t e ’ s s c o r e i n d i c a t e d th a th e s h o u l d n o tb e p a r o l e d . D. C. M UN . R EGS . t i t . 28, §§ 2 0 4 . 1 6 -22 (19 8 7 ). I n 1997 C ongr es s abol i s hed the D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a B oar d of Par ol e and r epl ace d i twi th th e Un i t e d S t a t e s P a r o l e Co mm i s s i o n . T h e Co mm i s s i o n p r o mu l g a t e d i t s o wn re g u la tio n s , w h ic h in c lu d e d a p o in t- b a s e d s c o ri n g s y s te m . See 28 C . F. R . § 2. 80. U nl i ke the 1987 s y s t em, i n w hi ch an i nm at e’ s poi nt s di ct at ed w hetherhe w as gr ant ed ordeni ed par ol e, the curr ents y s t em uses an i nm at e’ s poi nts cor e t o det erm i ne the numberof m onths an i nm at e s houl d s erve bey ond hi s m i ni m um s ent ence . § 2. 80( h) . A l though an in m a te is p re su m p tiv e lyu n su itab le f o r p a ro le u n til h e h a s s e rv e d th e tim e d icta ted b yh is poi nts cor e, “[t ] he C om m i s s i on m ay , i n unus ual ci r cumst ance s , gr antordenypar ol e t o a p ri so n er n o tw ith stan d ing the g u idelines . ” § 2 8 0 (n)(1 ). T h e c u rre n t re g u latio n s a re m o re d e taile d a n d u n if o rm th a n th e re g u latio n s in eff ectatthe t i m e of Brow n’ s offe ns e. A n i nm at e’ s t ot al s cor e i s cal cul at ed byaddi ng poi nt s i n the fol l ow i ng cat egor i es : s al i entfac t or ; curr entorpr i orvi ol ence ; and dea th of vict i m . § 2 . 80 (f) . S al i ent fact or point s r efl ectthe inm at e’s percei ved ri sk of reci divi sm and ar e aw ar ded bas ed on hi s age a tthe t i m e of the off ens e and the numberand natur e of h is prev iou s o ff

en ses. 28 C . F . R § 2 . 2 0 . V iolen ce p o ints reflec t th e u se o f v iolen ce o r a f ire a rm in th e c u rre n t o f f e n se o r in p re v io u s o f

f e n se s. § 2 .8 0 (f

). D e a th -o f

-v ictim p o in ts r efl ectm ur derand others peci fi cal l yenumer at ed cr i m es i nvol vi ng a “hi gh l evel ” of v io le n c e , e v e n if

th e v ic tim s u rv iv e d . Id . A fter ad d ing thes e p o ints t o g ethe r, the in m ate’s5

bas e gui del i ne r ange i s cal cul at ed i n m onths . § 2. 80( h) . T hi s r ange maythen be a dj us t ed upw ar d fordi s ci pl i naryi nfr act i ons w hi l e i ncar cer at ed, § 2. 80( j ) , ordow nw ar d for “s uper i orpr ogr am achi evement , ” § 2. 80( k) . I n deny i ng B r ow n’ s r eques tforpar ol e, t he C o m m iss io n c a lcu late d a g u id e lin e ra n g e o f 9 8 to 1 6 4 m o n th s p a st h is in iti a l p a ro le el i gi bi l i tydat e. II. A ft erbei ng deni ed par ol e, B r ow n fi l ed a t i m el yfede r al habea s pet i t i on, ar gui ng that appl i cat i on of the curr ent par ole gui deli nes viol at es the E x P ostF act o C l ause be cause i ts i gni fi cant l yi ncr eas ed hi s r i s k of s ervi ng a l ongers ent ence than he w oul d have s erved underthe gui del i nes i n eff ectatthe t i m e of hi s offe ns e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the p e tit io n a n d B ro w n f

iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and ourr evi ew of a h a b e a s p e titio n d is m is s e d w ith o u t a h e a ri n g is p le n a ry. R i char ds on v. P a. B d. of P ro b a tio n & P a ro le , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he gr avamen of B r ow n’ s appea l i s thatthe curr entpar ol e gui del i nes emphasi ze d if f e re n t f a c to rs a n d a re o b

jec tiv e lyh a rsh e r f

o r in m a tes in h is s h o e s th a n th e g u id e lin e s in eff ectatthe t i m e of hi s offe ns e. T he G overnm entvi ew s the curr entgui del i nes as not hi ng m or e than a pr ocedur al m echa ni s m fori m pl ement i ng the s ame subs t ant i ve cr i t er i a that w er e r el evantunderthe pr i orgui del i nes , butw i th m or e det ai l ed s peci fi ci tyand l es s openended di s cr et i on.6 III . T he Ex P os tFact o C l aus e appl i es t o “a s t atut e orpol i cychange w hi ch ‘ al t er s t he defi ni t i on of cr i m i nal conductori ncr eas es the pena l tybyw hi ch a c r i m e i s puni s habl e. ’ ” R i char ds on , 423 F. 3d at287 ( quot i ng C al i f . D ept . of C or r . v. Mor al es , 514 U . S. 499, 506 n . 3 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ) . “ Re tr o a c t i v e c h a n g e s i n l a ws g o v e rn i n g p a r o l e o f p r i s o n e r s , i n s o me i ns t ance s , m aybe vi ol at i ve of [ the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e] . ” G ar nerv. Jones , 52 9 U. S. 244, 250 ( 2000) . H ow ever , “noteveryr etr oact i ve pr ocedur al change cr eat i ng a r i s k of aff ect i ng an i nm at e’ s t erm s orcondi t i ons of conf i nementi s pr ohi bi t ed. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Mor al es , 5 1 4 U . S . at 50 8 -09 ). I n Mor al es , the Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed an ex p o st fa c to chal l enge t o the re tro a c tiv e a p p lica tio n o f a C a lifo rn ia s tatu te th a t d e c re a se d th e f re q u e n c yo f

p e rio d ic p a ro le r e v iew , n o tin g th a t th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se sh o u ld n o t b e in v o k e d to “mi cr om anage [] . . . l egi s l at i ve adj us t m ent s t o par ol e and s ent enci ng pr ocedur es . ” Mor al es , 514 U . S. at508. B utthe C our tal s o s t at ed thatan i nm at e cha l l engi ng the r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of new par ol e gui del i nes need nots how thathe w oul d have be en i m m edi at el ypar ol ed underpr evi ous gui del i nes – onl y“thatthe meas ur e of puni s hm ent i t s el f has change d. ” I

d. at510 n. 6. A ccor di ngl y , “[t ] he ques t i on of w hatl egi s l at i ve adj us t m ent s w i l l be hel d t o be of s uffi ci entm om entt o tr ans gr es s the cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i on m ustbe a mat t erof degr ee. ” Id . at509 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quot at i on o m itted).7

I n G ar ner , the Supr eme C our tcons i der ed a G eor gi a s t atut e s i m i l art o the C al i forni a l aw ati s s ue i n Mor al es . T he C our thel d thatal though the s t atut e di d not n e c e ss a rilyv io late th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se , the lo w e r c o u rt e rre d b yig n o rin g th e p a ro le b o a rd ’s in ter n a l p o licysta tem e n ts in terp re tin g th e sta tu te’ s e f f e c t. T h e re f

o re , the in m a te w as ent i t l ed t o “ade quat e di s covery ” t o demonstr at e thatthe new gui del i nes pos ed a “s i gni fi cantr i s k of pr ol ongi ng [hi s ] i ncar cer at i on. ” G ar ner , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 -5 7 . T h e C o u rt a lso c a u tio n e d th a t “[ t]h e S tate s m u st h a v e d u e f lex ib ili tyin f

o rm u latin g p a ro le pr ocedur es and addr es s i ng pr obl ems as s oci at ed w i th confi nementand r el eas e. ” I d. at 252. Fol l ow i ng Mor al es and G ar ner , w e h av e h ad o cc asio n to co n side r ex p o st fa c to c h a lle n g e s to c h a n g e s to p a ro le g u id e lin e s . See Mi cke ns - Thom as v. V aughn , 321 F. 3d 374 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( fi ndi ng ex p o st fa c to vi ol at i on w her e cha nge i n par ol e gui del i nes emphasi zed a new cr i t er i on thatw as s ol el yr es pons i bl e fori nm at e’ s cont i nued in c a rc e ra tio n ); R i char ds on , 423 F. 3d at293 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng Mi cke ns - Thom as as “an exce pt i onal cas e” a nd r ej ect i ng ex p o st fa c to chal l enge w her e i nm at e fa i l ed t o pr offe r“at lea st s o me ev iden ce o f d isad v an tage to w arran t hab ea s reli ef ”) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). I n R i char ds on , w e not ed that“[t ] he ex pos tfac t o i nqui ryhas tw o pr ongs : ( 1) w hetherther e w as a cha nge i n t he l aw orpol i cyw hi ch has been gi ven r etr os pect i ve eff ect , and ( 2) w hetherthe off enderw as di s advant aged bythe cha nge. ” R i char ds on , 423 F. 3d at287- 88. T o vi ol at e the s econd pr ong, “a r etr oact i ve cha nge i n the l aw orpol i cy8

m us tcr eat e a ‘ s uffi ci entr i s k of i ncr eas i ng the meas ur e of puni s hm entatt ache d t o the cover ed cr i m es ’ ; a ‘ s pecul at i ve and a t t enuat ed pos s i bi l i tyof . . . i ncr eas i ng the meas ur e of puni s hm ent ’ i s notenough. ” I d. at288 ( quot i ng Mor al es , 5 1 4 U . S . at 50 9 ).

I V. I n appl y i ng the contr ol l i ng l aw t o hi s cas e, B r ow n cl ai m s thr ee a s pect s of the new par ol e gui del i nes cons t i tut e s ubs t ant i ve cha nges thatm at er i al l yaff ecthi s chanc es for r el eas e. W e cons i dereac h as pecti n turn. A. B ro w n a rg u e s th a t th e im p lem e n tatio n o f a p o in t-b a se d sc o rin g sy ste m w ith s peci fi c gui del i ne r anges nece s s ar i l yvi ol at es the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e. W e di s agr ee. A l though t he curr entgui del i nes “mandat e” s peci fi c per i ods of addi t i onal t i m e for vari ou s r easons ( e. g. , d ea th o f a v ict im an d p o sses sion o f c o n tr ab an d w h il e inc arc era ted), thes e cons i der at i ons w oul d have be en eva l uat ed bythe B oar d of Par ol e underthe pr i or g u id e lin e s . See D. C. M UN . R EGS . ti t. 9, § § 1 0 5 .1 (a ), (e ) (1 9 7 2 ) (d ire c tin g th e B o a rd to c o n s id e r t h e n a tu re o f

th e u n d e rl y in g o f

f e n s e a n d th e in m a te ’s in s titu tio n a l e x p e ri e n c e ). M o reo v er, th e P aro le C o m m issi o n retains d iscreti o n u n d er the cu rren t sy stem to d ep art f ro m th e g u id e lin e s . 2 8 C .F .R § 2 8 0 (n )( 1 ). See G ar ner , 529 U . S. at253 ( not i ng r el evanc e of di s cr et i on i n ex p o st fa c to an aly sis) . T h u s, th e f

a c t th a t th e p o in t-b a se d sc o rin g sy ste m o f th e c u rre n t g u id e lin e s re su lts i n a pr es um pt i ve deni al of par ol e i n B r ow n’ s cas e s heds no l i ghton w hatw oul d haveT hr ee poi nt s w er e as s es s ed forcaus i ng the dea th of hi s vi ct i m and thr ee f orthe 1 us e of vi ol ence i n t he curr entoffe ns e and i n pr i oroffe ns es . B r ow n s ubs equent l ys t at es th a t o n lyf

iv e p o in ts w e re a ss e ss e d , P e tit io n e r’s B r. at 2 2 , b u t w e w ill a ss u m e th a t six is corr ectbeca us e thi s i s the numberthatw as us ed bythe Par ol e C om m i s s i on. 9 been hi s fat e underthe gui del i nes i n eff ecti n 1978. A ccor di ngl y , B r ow n’ s br oads i de c h a llen g e to th e c u rre n t sy ste m m u st f a il. B. B r ow n al s o cl ai m s thatthe curr entgui del i nes ar e more detr i m ent al t o hi m than the pr i orgui del i nes i n s ever al part i cul arr es pect s . T he curr entgui del i nes as s es s s i x poi nt s for the vi ol entdeath of hi s vi ct i m w hi l e the gui del i nes i m pl ement ed i n 1987 w oul d have asses sed on l yon e po i nt. H e al so no t es that aft er bei ng den i ed p arol e i n 2 00 6, he m ust 1 w ai tfi ve y ear s foranotherpar ol e hea r i ng w her eas the pr i orgui del i nes al l ow ed forannual r ehea r i ngs . Fi nal l y , B r ow n ar gues thathi s “r emot e” di s ci pl i naryi nfr act i ons , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n addi t i onal t i m e underthe curr entgui del i nes , w oul d have be en utt er l yi rr el evant underthe ol d gui del i nes , beca us e “a n offe nder. . . w ho had for fei t ed good t i m e r es t or ed w as notpenal i zed a nd coul d be par ol ed. ” I d. at23. T he cons t i tut i onal r el evanc e of the fr equenc yof r ehea r i ngs i s ques t i onabl e gi ven Mor al es and G ar ner , es peci al l ys i nce Brow n w as pr es um pt i vel yuns ui t abl e forpar ol e for atl eas tanotherei ghty ear s acc or di ng t o the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s cal cul at i ons . A nd c o n tra ryto B ro w n ’s a ss e rtio n , the lan g u a g e o f th e 1 9 7 8 g u id e lin e s d o e s n o t sp e c if ica lly p ro h ib it c o n s id e ra tio n o f h is re m o te d is c ip lin a ry in f ra c tio n s . See D. C. M UN . R EGS . t i t . 9,10

§ 105. 2 ( 1972) . B utthe purpor t ed di s cr epanc ybetw een the w ei ghtgi ven t o the vi ol ent death of B r ow n’ s vi ct i m underthe ol d gui del i nes and underthe curr entgui del i nes m ay su p p o rth is argu m en t bec au se itm igh t po se a sign ifi ca n t r isk o f p rolo n g ing B row n ’s i ncar cer at i on. T he s i x poi nt s as s es s ed forthe vi ol entdeath of hi s vi ct i m underthe curr ent g u id e lin e s a d d e d b e tw e e n n in e a n d tw e lv e y e a rs to B ro w n ’s g u id e lin e ra n g e . See § 2. 80( h) . A l though a gui del i ne r ange byi t s el f does notnece s s ar i l yi ndi cat e a s i gni fi cant r i s k of pr ol onged i ncar cer at i on, the l ength of thi s r ange i s s tr i ki ng, es peci al l ycons i der i ng the r el at i ve l ack of

emphasi s gi ven t o the natur e of the under l y i ng offe ns e i n the pr i or g u id e lin e s . C om

pa re § 105. 1( a) ( s i ngl e r efe r ence t o “the natur e of the vi ol at i on, m itig a tin g o r a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” ), w ith § § 1 0 5 .1 (c )-(f ) (a ll em p h a siz in g p o stinca rce rati o n fa ctors o r pe rson al/b ac k g rou n d ch ara cterist ics o f th e o ff en d er). T h e sc o rin g sy ste m im p lem e n ted in 1 9 8 7 — w h ich , u n d e r D istric t o f C o lu m b ia la w , im p le m e n te d n o s ig n if ic a n t s u b s ta n tiv e c h a n g e s to th e 1 9 7 8 g u id e lin e s , D avis v. Hender s on , 6 5 2 A . 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 6 -37 (D . C . 1 9 9 4 ) — m ak es th is r an g e a p p ea r ev en m o re di s par at e. B r ow n w oul d have r ece i ved atm os tfi ve poi nt s athi s i ni t i al par ol e hea r i ng u n d e rth e 1 9 8 7 g u i d e l i n e s , wi th a n a u t o ma t i c r e h e a r i n g e v e rys u b s e q u e n ty e a r . D. C. M UN . R EGS . t i t . 28, § 200, A ppx. 2- 1 ( 1987) . A s s um i ng cont i nued good beha vi orand achi evementi n i ns t i tut i onal pr ogr ams, thi s s cor e w oul d have be en r educe d byone poi ntat eac h s ucce s s i ve r ehea r i ng. § 200, A ppx. 2- 2. U nderthi s s y s t em, B r ow n w oul d have be en11

p re su m p tiv e lysu itab le f o r p a ro le a t h is s e c o n d a n n u a l re h e a rin g w h e n h is s c o re f e ll t o th re e . I d. Forthe af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e agr ee w i th B r ow n thatthe di s cr epanc y betw een the gui del i nes cons t i tut es m or e than conj ectur e that“the pr act i cal eff ectof the [new gui del i nes ] w as t o change the w ei ghtthat[thi s part i cul arfac t or ] w as gi ven i n the par ol e ca l cul at i on. ” R i char ds on , 423 F. 3d at289 ( ci t i ng Mi cke ns - Thom as , 321 F. 3d at 3 8 7 ). C. F inally , as a n o ther ex p o st fa c to p rob lem , B row n n o tes “the n ew sco ri n g sy stem ’s emphasi s on cr i m i nal hi s t oryr atherthan r ehabi l i t at i on, phy s i cal and emot i onal heal th, and i ns t i tut i onal exper i ence and ac hi evement s . ” W e agr ee thatthi s i s a fa ci al di s cr epanc yt hat s e e m s t o s h i f

tth e o v e r a l l e m p h a s i s o f th e p a r o l e i n q u i ry. T he gui del i nes i n eff

ectatthe t i m e of Brow n’ s offe ns e l i s t ed s i x cr i t er i a t o gui de the B oar d of Par ol e i n exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on. T he fi r s ttw o cr i t er i a r el at ed t o the under l y i ng offe ns e and the off ender ’ s pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t ory . §§ 105. 19( a) , ( b) . A not her cr i t er i on r el at ed t o t he off ender ’ s “i ns t i tut i onal exper i ence . ” § 105. 1( e) . T he other cr i t er i a r el at ed t o: the “[ p] er s onal and s oci al hi s t oryof the off ender , i ncl udi ng s uch f a c t o r s a s h i s f

a m i l y s i tu a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , s o c i a l i z a t i o n , m a r i t a l h i s t o ry, e m p lo ym e n t h isto ry , u se o f leis u re tim e a n d p rio r m ili tar ye x p e rie n c e , if a n y ,” § 1 0 5 .1 (c ); the off ender ’ s “phy s i cal and emot i onal heal th and/ orpr obl ems w hi ch mayhave pl ay ed a12

ro le in [ h is ] s o c ia liz a tio n p ro c e s s , a n d e f f o rt s m a d e to o v e rc o m e a n ys u c h p ro b le m s ,” § 1 0 5 .1 (d ); a n d th e “ [ c ]o m m u n ityre so u rc e s a v a ilab le to a ss ist th e o f f e n d e r w ith re g a rd to h is ne ed s an d p rob lem s, ” § 1 0 5 . 1 (f). T h e c u rre n t g u id e lin e s m a k e n o p ro v isio n f o r a n yo f th e c riter ia r e f

e re n c e d in § § 1 0 5 .1 (c ), (d ), an d (f

). P o ten tiallysy m p a th e tic c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e m e n tal, p h y sic a l, and s oci al pr obl ems pl agui ng an off enderhas been c om pl et el yel i m i nat ed. L i kew i s e, any p ro g re ss m a d e b yth e o f f e n d e r in c o n f

ro n tin g th e se p ro b lem s a n d re so u rc e s a v a ilab le to hel p the off

enderon the out s i de ar e no l ongera fa ct or . W her eas the pr i orgui del i nes e m p h a siz e d th e in ter n a l an d e x ter n a l p ro b lem s th a t m ig h t h a v e d riv e n a n o f f e n d e r to com m i ta cri m e and his effo rt s t o o vercom e t hem , the cu rr ent gui deli nes fo cus al m ost e x c lu s iv e ly o n th e s e v e ri ty o f th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m e a n d th e o f f e n d e r’ s c ri m in a l h is to ry. See 28 C . F. R §§ 2. 20, 2. 80. A lth o u g h a p a ro le a g e n c yo r sta te “ m a ylea rn f ro m e x p e rie n c e ” a n d a d ju st its par ol e cr i t er i a ac cor di ngl y , that“does notm ean thatthos e w ho w er e s ent ence d atan ear l i erj unctur e maynow be more s ever el yr e- s ent ence d i n the l i ghtof new l y - found w i s dom . T hi s i s pr eci s el yw hatthe Ex P os tFact o C l aus e pr ohi bi t s . ” Mi cke ns - Thom as , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 8 7 . T h e d isc re p a n c yb e tw e e n th e e m p h a sis p lac e d o n a n o f f e n d e r’s m e n tal, phy s i cal , and s oci al char act er i s t i cs bythe pr i orgui del i nes and the l ack of cons i der at i on gi ven t o thos e fa ct or s bythe curr entgui del i nes i ndi cat es a s ubs t ant i ve s hi ftthatm i ght s ubj ectB r ow n t o a more s ever e s ent ence .13 V. I n s um , the addi t i onal w ei ghtgi ven t o the vi ol entdeath of the vi ct i m and the a p p a re n t d e -e m p h a sis o f B ro w n ’s m e n tal, p h y sic a l, an d so c ial c h a ra c ter istics c o llec tiv e ly i ndi cat e thatr etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the curr entpar ol e gui del i nes m i ghtpos e a s i gni fi cantr i s k of pr ol ongi ng B r ow n’ s i ncar cer at i on. W e ac know l edge thatw hi l e fi ndi ng a p o ten tial ex p o st fa c to vi ol at i on i n r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the curr entgui del i nes for re p a ro le , the D . C . C ir cu iteq u ated the c u rren t and 1 9 8 7 g u idelines fo r p a ro le i n t erm s of “r ehabi l i t at i ve foc us . ” F letc h e r v . R e ill y , 4 3 3 F . 3 d 8 6 7 , 8 6 9 (D . C . C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B eca us e p a ro le w as notati s s ue i n F l etcher , how ever , the D . C . C i r cui thad no re a so n to e n g a g e in a d e taile d c o m p a riso n b e tw e e n th e c u rre n t g u id e lin e s a n d th o se in eff ecti n 1978. T hus , al though w e fi nd the l egal anal y s i s i n F l etcherhel pful , i t s di ctum th a t th e c u rre n t g u id e lin e s f o r p a ro le e ss e n tiallym irro r th e 1 9 8 7 g u id e lin e s is unper s uas i ve i n B r ow n’ s cas e i n l i ghtof ourdet ai l ed expl anat i on of the di ffe r ence s betw een the curr entgui del i nes and the 1978 gui del i nes . H er e, i tappea r s thatthe

“ s u b s ta n tiv e c ri te ri a f

o r p a ro le re le a s e [ m a y ] h a v e c h a n g e d ” w ith th e c u rr e n t g u id e lin e s . Mi cke ns - Thom as , 321 F. 3d at392. I n R i char ds on w e deni ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng w her e the habe as pet i t i oner “pr ovi ded no evi dence , and forthatm att er. . . pr offe r ed no al l egat i on, thata ‘ s i gni fi cant ri s k ’ o f in c re a s e d p u n is h m e n t w a s c re a te d ” b ya p p lic a tio n o f n e w p a ro le g u id e lin e s . R i char ds on , 423 F. 3d at293. I n t hi s appea l , B r ow n has poi nt ed t o s peci fi c di s par i t i es14

b e tw e e n th e p ri o r a n d c u rr e n t g u id e lin e s th a t c o u ld p ro v id e th e b a s is f o r h a b e a s re lie f. T her efor e, he i s ent i t l ed t o “a s ear chi ng compar i s on of the ol d and new [par ol e] r egi m es in o rd e r t o d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e [ ] P a ro le C o m m is s io n ’s a p p lic a tio n o f th e f e d e ra l . . . r egul at i ons . . . cr eat ed a s i gni fi cantr i s k thathe w i l l be s ubj ect ed t o a l engthi er i ncar cer at i on than he w oul d have be en i f the C om m i s s i on had adhe r ed t o the rul es and pr act i ces of the D . C . B oar d. ” F l etcher , 433 F. 3d at879. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tand r emand t he ca s e forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.